The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas

Energy Generation Plan Presented to Austin City Council

February 4, 2010 by

Last Thursday Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan briefed Austin City Council on the utility’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan. This plan is the culmination of 18 months of input from the public, the creation of a generation resource task force of various stakeholders to review various energy plans and make recommendations, and support and input from both the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Com­mis­sion — but it still isn’t the end of the line for the plan. The generation plan will also be the subject of a city-wide town hall meeting February 22nd, and city council is expected to vote on some version of it in March.

The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council’s renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city’s commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility’s carbon dioxide emissions. It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant to 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn’t it?

As we’ve come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan. I’ve formed this opinion for a few reasons:

They’re adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan. Austin doesn’t need a new generation plan because we’re going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we’d be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age. But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result. Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective. This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.

Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health). The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills. It doesn’t do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it. But that couldn’t be farther from the case with this plan; this isn’t green for some, this is green for all. Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward. There’s been a lot of focus and attention on the utility’s estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what’s missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn’t do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month. So do the math — for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.

Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they’re building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions. The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it. They’re a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not). It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development. If you buy RECs you don’t get new jobs and businesses in your community. If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution. But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own. For that, they should be applauded.

20 Responses

I think it is very unfortunate that Public Citizen is promoting forms of energy instead of educating the public about the issues. I’m not sure about the context of Texas and Wind Energy but promoting Ridge top industrial turbines as they are here in Maine is a policy of crass stupidity. The beautiful mountain tops are being destroyed. Trees are removed and the mountains filled with concrete. We have a large Bald eagle nesting population in Maine that are under threat. Where turbines are positioned close to habitation there are issues of noise and sleep disturbance for the inhabitants. The politics stinks worse than the smoke stacks of the industrial revolution. Large companies with ties straight to the heart of government are making a killing from the easy lobbying for masses of taxpayer money and the administrations cronies are getting fat like juicy pears. Sorry, promoting renewables is not what an organization working in the public interest should be doing. How about conservation and efficiency measures? Restoring the forests being removed for these white elephant turnbines?

“I think it is very unfortunate that Public Citizen is promoting forms of energy instead of educating the public about the issues.”

Mitchell, I’m just going to have to disagree with you there. Our current dirty energy system is out of touch with what America needs (to put it lightly), and I just don’t see a way to fix it without moving forward with cleaner, greener solutions. How we do energy nowadays is the root of so many major societal problems. Worried about public health? The way we do energy is making us sick. Worried about the economy? We’re losing the clean tech boom to China. Worried about the environment? The way we do energy is poisoning our air and water ways. Worried, as you certainly appear to be, about mountains? We’re blowing them up to keep the lights on (mountain top removal). Worried about global warming? The way we do energy is radically changing the climate.

Every new megawatt of renewable energy is one less megawatt of energy we get from dirty fossil fuels. Every new megawatt of renewable energy means the air is cleaner for a child with asthma, or a woman worried that her baby will struggle with a learning disability. Every new megawatt of renewable energy means we’re closer to building up a new economy. Every new megawatt of renewable energy means we’re a little bit closer to derailing catastrophic global warming.

Plus, we DO try to educate the public; that’s why we’ve got this blog going! And I couldn’t agree with you more on energy efficiency, that’s one of our key issues as well (and one of the reasons I am so supportive of Austin Energy’s generation plan).

[…] It will meet council’s renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city’s commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility’s carbon dioxide emissions. It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change . … Read more: Energy Generation Plan Presented to Austin City Council « TexasVox … […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

[…] town hall will be an opportunity for Austinites to learn more about the Resource & Climate Protection Plan that I geeked out about last week. For those of you keeping score, I’m a fan of the plan because it will significantly reduce […]

The plan Duncan has a good result. My only question is how we are going to get there. Getting the general population to conserve 800 MW is a pipe dream at best. Without implementing a tiered rate scale punishing the people who waste power I don’t see it happening. Telling people they need to inconvenience themselves to save some power isn’t going to work in this society of instant gratification and entitlement. Sometimes you need to cause a little pain to get people to do things.

Another problem I see is adding all the renewable and having nothing to back them up. Renewable are the least reliable of all forms of power generation. Sure we will be green but we will be in the dark a lot more.

[…] week at Texas Vox Citizen Sarah geeked out on the new energy generation plan presented to Austin City Council. May not sound too snazzy but there’s enormous potential there to reduce carbon emissions, […]

Glad to see folks joining the discussion and with such obvious concern for finding energy solutions that grow the economy and protect health and the environment.

I think the worries about getting from A to B are a little misguided. This plan has been designed over a 2+ year period, its been looked at by Austin Energy staff, independent consultants, and a volunteer commission representing industry, energy experts, citizen groups, and environmentalists. At all levels these folks were looking at very specific projections and plans for implementation – all of them with an eye towards cost and reliability.

The idea that we can save 800MW is not a pipe dream. Just look at the results we’re getting back from point-of-sale home inspections. There are AC ducts pouring energy into attics throughout the city. And as electricity costs rise (which they will do no matter what plan ultimately gets implemented) the incentive to conserve or generate your own will only improve.

But at the end of the day, it really is good that people are chiming in. Austin set a new standard for transparency in developing this policy. People should stay engaged, get good answers to their questions, and offer good ideas.

Energy efficiency is very viable, the more money you put into it the more energy you will save. It works, and it is CHEAP. Education is key, and we do what we can, but we are just a small non-profit, please help by spreading the word!

Wind power is not the answer – alone. Even if we wanted to we probably couldn’t get all our energy needs from wind exclusively. That is why we also advocate for efficiency and other renewables like solar, geothermal, etc. Transmission is a bigger issue, in my mind, than the wind farms themselves. But the transmission issue can be overcome as well.

“Locals” who complain about wind turbines are mostly just NIMBY-ists. I have been to many wind farms. They are NOT noisy. The screech of an eagle is many times louder, the roar of a passing car or truck is many times louder. The WIND blowing past your ear lobes is louder! You can’t even hear the turbines until you are quite close. These NIMBY-ists are just thinking up complaints because they don’t want to have to deal with a development in their backyard (or the “eyesore” – which I really don’t get, I think they are pretty), meanwhile the poor and disenfranchised have to deal with more coal plants, more nuke plants, more oil refineries in their neighborhoods. There will always be a draw back to energy generation – there will always be a footprint. The objective is to minimize it as much as possible.

You’re worried about the small acreage of space needed for the base of a wind turbine? What about the people living in Appalachia who are having their mountains blown up and their waterways destroyed or poisoned by mountain top removal? Don’t cry because a few turbines will be put on your mountain ridge – be glad you still have a mountain! When you talk about energy generation and the costs you also have to consider what the costs are of the alternative.

Bird issues were a concern, but now with proper citing bird/bat deaths are minimized. Sky scrapers kill far more birds every year than wind turbines do. Where are the anti-wind advocates when a new sky scraper is proposed? Where are all the bird-activists calling for the demolition of all tall buildings? And I assure you, coal plants kill far more birds (and other wildlife) than wind turbines do.

Finally, it is not unreliable. Wind can be predicted with great certainty a day in advance. Solar will always generate at least some electricity between sun up and sun down. Any possible shortcomings can easily be accounted for, particularly when you start increasing the versatility of your renewable generation and even just the versatility of your wind farm locations and overall production. If you don’t like wind farms then advocate more strongly for distributed generation, efficiency, solar power, etc. But I cannot fathom someone believing that wind is even remotely close in terms of public health and ecological destruction to a coal plant, nuke plant, or even natural gas plant.

Thanks for all the great discussion Austinites… and others. I work for Sierra Club, was on the task force, and was on task force that looked at the different scenarios. My oft repeated line is that the plan is just a roadmap not a straightjacket so getting from Point A to Point B will depend on price, availability, market forces etc. In other words, the Austin Energy Plan says we will purchase this much natural gas, this much coal, add these renewables, etc, but the timing will depend upon realities. One of our recommendations was to review the plan every two years as part of a public reassessment so that we could call a time out and make sure it all still makes sense two, four or six years from now…

This is a good, compromise plan –not perfect — but it will signal the wider market that Austin will be looking for the best deals out there on solar, biomass and wind while also growing our energy efficiency market. We have done 700 mWs of energy efficiency already in 20 years, and this plan calls for 800 MWs over the next 10 years. Ambitious but not impossible (and the TAsk force recommended setting a higher goal of 1000 MWs).

IN terms of wind development, fortunately in Texas we don’t have the same issues as you might in Maine — most of our wind power is in West Texas..where habitat and endangered species issues are not the same. But siting is important for certain bat and bird species and deaths do result. Unfortunately, no energy solution is perfect so the idea is to slowly transition from one set of energy resources –coal, gas and nuclear to another — wind, solar, some gas, energy efficiency and hopefully a way to store it all. IT will take time, but the AE plan is a good start toward a Just Transition.

Wind is extraordinarily inefficient. It’s electrical output is little and intermittent. Yet it requires that huge amounts of fossil fuel be constantly combusted at all times it is blowing so that they can be instantly brought from hot standby mode to a boil the moment the wind dies. No electricity is produced by fossil fuel plants in such standby mode – but lots of fossil fuel is used up.

Also, the fossil fuel backup plants are always going up and down to balance the load due to wind’s intermittency and this leads to very inefficient combustion.

Wind farms also consume large amounts of electricity from the outside grid just to operate. Also because they are often built far away from cities in many parts of the U.S., they suffer from unduly high line loss of electricity across the great distances.

Whenever wind is installed to any great degree, massive transmission infrastructure is required. A huge cost to ratepayers that the wind pushers and politicians hide from Joe Ratepayer. But an inconvenient truth.

I was fortunate to have worked for many years for one of the largest A/E firms designing and building power plants. What I notice these days is a remarkable lack of understanding or commitment to evaluate different alternatives and design based on reliability factors and proven performance. Basic engineering common sense.
Instead I see just the opposite, in these early days of headlong rushing into large wind systems deployments. And we really ought to be asking these facilities to account for and prove their efficiency and output claims. We’d like this green experiment to work, right? We need those data and those assessments to see if it is working.
We ought to pause and demand that proposed facilities prove their expected contribution into the electric grid and their capital and engineering bases on the realized worth and performance of existing facilities. Most of these data are not published for existing or estimated and guaranteed for proposed wind facilities.
Much wind turbine test stand data (including assumed wind profile and noise data) are not accurate in many regions of the US including hilly, mountainous, and wooded terrain such as New England where high wind shear affects performance significantly.
The electric grid is a complex system and has a vulnerability; no storage. It works primarily because of based-loaded plants that provide guaranteed megawatts when demand requires, second to second. When people balk at the phrase “wind is unreliable” they should understand that at the grid level, wind is unreliable- as it relates to satisfying electric demand on a second to second basis. Only base-load plants provide that reliability. If wind facilities were designed with storage (pumped storage, ammonia, etc) and the output of the wind facility is a guaranteed megawatt quantity day and night (output from turbines and/or storage as available), then wind could be reliable- on the grid level. Same with solar or any other grid-tie green facility design by the way.
A commenter above appeared to be confusing decibel level with disturbance. (Maybe he has never experienced how annoying a single one-nanowatt mosquito can be at 1:30 am.) He should be aware that wind turbine noise is disturbing starting at low noise levels, around 32 dBA (Pedersen 2004); and that the time-varying impulsive type amplitude modulation and whine sounds are much more easily detectable to the human ear at distance that one would suspect from standing under a turbine. Wind turbine noise has been found to be much more disturbing than transportation noise and starting at much lower noise levels. It appears easy for some to dismiss the very really distress of others from noise impacts; a remarkable situation- that kind of dismissive comment is often heard from the same people who are apparently concerned about environmental impacts on people. “I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand”?
There is a large difference between visiting a site during the day standing under a turbine where the sound is time-smeared and, living near a facility where one’s home is penetrated by the low-frequency in-step whumps from the additive combinations from multiple turbines under atmospheric inversion conditions. The sounds one hears up close are not same as what one hears 2000 feet, 5000 feet, 10000 feet away.
The commenter above may not be aware that current standards for wind turbine noise prediction exclude predictions below 44 Hertz (where most of the energy is), and than no wind turbine manufacturer provides the data without A-weighting the low frequency levels which makes them appear much less of an issue (this is absolutely contrary to standard engineering practice where sound power levels are quoted with unweighted octave or one-third octave band data). Measurements near wind facilities show that the bulk of the wind turbine acoustic energy at distances of a mile or more is well below 200 Hertz, usually peaking in the 2 to 16 Hertz region. This is entirely consistent with acoustic emissions of a large propeller fan.
Most importantly the reader should understand that these 3-blade wind turbines are uncontrolled noise sources. By that I mean there is no reliable engineering noise control option except to stop their rotation if they create disturbance. Wind turbines (the kind currently being are elevated and must remain exposed to the fuel source (the wind) in order to function. Once installed, distances to sensitive receptors are fixed. The only reliable engineering option that can be exercised (that allows the wind turbine to continue rotating) is to include sufficient distance (an exclusion zone) from sensitive receptors (homes, hospitals, schools, etc.) during the design and permitting stage.
In my experience in electric power generation and general acoustics over the last three decades, until the recent proliferation of wind facilities, I do not recall a regulatory agency permitting or licensing an uncontrolled noise source for operation any hour of the day or night.
Perhaps the closest analog I can see to wind turbine noise is airport noise, with the elevated sources (jet aircraft) producing shear noise as the wind turbines blades do. (At 2000 feet a wind turbine sound very much like a jet aircraft that never stops.) Airports are normally constrained with time management (such as a night curfew) to prevent sleep disturbance in nearby communities under airport flight paths.
No time management or curfew has been ordered for wind turbine facilities in the US that I’m aware of. Despite disturbance, complaints, and lawsuits, the wind industry and regulatory authorities continue to proceed as if nothing is wrong. In fact, it looks like just about everything I learned and applied in the engineering of power generation facilities has been turned upside down.

I am glad some people understand what I meant when I said wind was unreliable. I meant on a grid level. Just talk to power schedulers that start and stop generating units, they don’t like wind. I also ask if it is so reliable than why are wind farms adding gas turbines to supplement lulls in the wind.

I still think 800MW is a pipe dreams. Sure we can get the low hanging fruit like leaking ducts and incandescent bulbs. Maybe get a few hundred. When we get that knocked out then it will get exponentially more expensive per saved KW. It will be expensive stuff like insulation, windows, higher efficiency a/c units. Like I said some people will do it but a large portion of people won’t. What do we do then start buying people A/C units and windows. As an A/E customer I don’t want to pay for someone else’s home improvements. I am not saying it in impossible, I am just curious how they plan on conserving that amount of power. I haven’t seen anything saying how they plan on doing it. I can say I will earn a million dollars but just saying it won’t make it happen.